Campaigns Wikia talk:Arbitration Board
Sorry forgot to login in, the IP making this article was me. Wikizach 13:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC) So, what do you think? Please discuss a very interesting policy! Wikizach 13:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) :It is an interesting proposal. Right now we have two of the three branches of the US Constitution. Executive, which for our purposes is the Administrators; and Legislative, which for our purposes right now is the people directly because our population is so low. What you are proposing is the creation of a Judicial branch. Interesting. :I had hoped not to have to create structures like this so fast, but then I think we should look to the US Founders, who set up the basic structure before anything else had been done. The states had had legislative bodies for a few years, which is natural whenever a middle class arises in a society, but the Articles of Confederation were pretty loose. :I'd be interested in other thoughts. Chadlupkes 18:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC) ::I think and hope that our population rises to a number that things can get moving. There Will be disputes, and we cannot let vandals destroy this Wikia. We must tell others about this, but we first need a solid system. Without that, we have nothing to expand from. Wikizach 18:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC) :I think it's too early for this. Our biggest vote so far has been 16 members, and the average recently has been more like 7 or 8. A 9-member board now would be more than half of the community, and more people than are around enough to participate, whether they are suitable or not. We can keep the proposal on the books and continue to refine it, but we're not ready for it now. --whosawhatsis? 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC) ::I know. By the time such a policy is implemented, there would be more people. The planned vote I am asking for this is in December. Over 30 days. Enough time to change the fine print and get more members in. Let's wait until then to say we don't have too high a population. Wikizach 22:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC) :::We're not likely to have enough people to make it work in a month either. If anything, member activity has decreased over the last few months. New accounts are rarely created and most of those people never come back. Even if membership does start growing steadily, I don't see us being ready for something like this any time in the next year, let alone a month from now. --whosawhatsis? 00:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Unnecessary. This Wikia needs to stop focussing on procedure and policies of the Wikia and look at politics in the larger world around us. If you want a Wikia for a virtual government, please ask for one. Create all the laws, offices and procedural policies you want there. The mission of this Wikia is "for politics to become more intelligent, and for democracy to really involve the people." --CocoaZen 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, but politics gets nasty. In the future, there WILL be arguments about many things, mostly NPOV. We need some way to get rid of those problems so we can even start to make politics more intellegent. The Board is there for Arbitration and Mediation, not telling us what to do. Wikizach 14:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Separation of powers Ok, I agree with Whosawhatsis that we will probably not have enough people to justify a 9 member board by December. Maybe a 3 member board, stretching to 5 if we're lucky. However, the idea itself has merit. What would people think about making the rule that members of the board cannot be either staff or volunteer admins? I think the separation of powers is important. Thoughts? Chadlupkes 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC) : I believe that would be fine. Just sumbit the wording you would like to add here so that we can all see it. Wikizach 00:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC) At Least a 9 person board would probably keep 9 people interested :) Seriously though at this stage 5 would be a good number with a quorum/majority of 3. This means that 5 people can vote but really only three are required. Other than that the wording is perfect. Deane Jessep 06:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Judicial oversight important Hello All, I think this step VERY important. The build-up of Arbiters over time is wise. Don't want to over-muscle the judiciary until Campaigns Wikia builds up more in the administrative and legislative areas. Governance is the hot topic in corporations, and has been for the last five years. It's a delicate balancing act, but you throw something up on the wall and see if it sticks. It sticks or not based on the consensus of those who will be governed. Keep it up! This work is VERY important! Sample Poll Ok, since we have made a proposal we all seem to agree with, let's hold a sample poll. Please vote here, and make it only once!!!! http://zac1.2.pollhost.com/ Wikizach 02:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Thoughts Hi everyone. I haven't been around in some time, sadly. I've been stuck between evaluations and university elections. Anyway, I like the idea in general, although I'd feel more comfortable if we stated the functions that admins and arbiters would have, especially where these do not overlap... I'll be checking in. Anyway, I've just got one more month of classes left, so be prepared for a lot of me! Cheers to all! --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC) :I believe it would be up to the first board members to set precedent, on the issue you said above. That's why the first election would be so important. Wikizach 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC) I dont like an Arbitration Board, but it is inevitable. Lot against vote. I am a victim myself of an arbitration board. But I have to admit that sometimes a court is inevitable. And of course I am totally against administrators to hold also the arbitration power. I prefer an Heliaia type court rather than an arbitration board of "aristocrats" or "profesional polititians" who are judging depending on who voted in favor of them in the arbitration commity elections. So I am against this proposal. I will approve the proposal only in case the author adds something like this : "the arbitration board comprises a percentage of the active members of the electorate, chosed for a predefined time period '''by the lot'. Both the percentage number of the electorate that will become arbitrators (by the lot) and the period they will remain is the subject of vote."'' Iasson 15:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :Campaigns Wikia is a center for politics. Politics can (sadly) get nasty. We need some way of protection. Admins must give up their power to become board members, as you have said. And on your concern: The number of members slowly increases as the population will grow. Wikizach 15:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :: and what about choosing arbitrators by lot rather than vote? Iasson 15:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :::I don't fully understand what you mean by lot, please explain. Wikizach 15:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :::: I suppose an electorate is defined, including into it only the persons who are frequent contributors of the site and not everybody who subscribed once upon time and left us. I will add this absence time qualification into Campaigns_Wikia:Qualifications_to_vote, as amendment , hoping you will vote for it. Then, among the members of this active electorate, we will choose the arbitrators by chance, I mean Randomly. Then our electorate is only asked to vote how many the randomly selected arbitrators will be (a vote asking the number of arbitrators, as a percentage of the electorate), and how long their service will last. ::::It is clear now? Iasson 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :::::So you want a randomly-selected jury rather than elected arbitrators? Who does the selection, bearing in mind that there is no way to verify that the selection is truly random? At least when they are elected, that election is verifiable, whereas a "randomly" selected jury could just as easily (probably more easily) be a jury stacked in favor of whoever is supposed to determine the random selection. In this case, voting is clearly the lesser of two evils. --whosawhatsis? 16:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :::::: How do we select truly randomly? Search for "fair coin flips" or read the 4.10 paragraph of the book "applied cryptography, second edition" by Bruce Schneier. Iasson 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::Anyone can generate a suitably random number for the purpose, I don't doubt that in the least. The problem is that the wiki software does not provide a way to do so, so such results would have to be obtained outside CW by a single user, such that that user could just as easily provide a non-random choice. In this situation, one individual who knows the potential arbitrators well enough has a choice whether to choose arbitrators fairly or to stack the jury, and nobody will know the difference. --whosawhatsis? 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Yes it is. I agree with the whole thing up to the point of it being selected by chance. The only way to defend against an evil Board is that it is selected by the people. With chance many new questions come up: How do we do it by chance, what if the same person gets the job, what if a user who none of us support is chosen, etc. Wikizach 16:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC) : We can do it by chance using fair coin flips, as mentioned above. I have to admit that this is a complicated protocol not everybody understands, so we may use the below protocols as alternatives: #We can vote a board of 3 members and give them the task to select randomly the arbitrators. The 3 board members may use fair coin flips to select randomly, or any other protocol. The electorate can check after a couple of selections if the selections of the board were truly random. In case the electorate thinks that the selections were not truly random, they can simply decrease the service time of the arbitrators. That way the service of the arbitrators will end soon, and the arbitrators will be selected randomly once again, until the electorate is convinced that the selection was truly random, so it will increase arbitrators' service time. Of course, whenever the service of the 3 members board (whose task was to select the arbitrators randomly) ends, the electorate will not vote them again in case they didnot chosed truly randomly. #Another simplier protocol that may help us choose randomly is to use random events, like the stock market, the weather, football matches, lottery e.t.c.. Lets say about lottery, we divide the lots and give the same number of lots to every member of the electorate, until all lots are distributed. We are simply wait for the lottery results at the newspaper or TV, and then we decide who are the lucky guys. Of course if we think a specific lottery is suspicious, we may vote for it and change the lottery. :I see no problem in case the same person gets the job, we can simple select randomly another person. Also I see no problem if a user none of us support is chosen, as long as we can increase the number of arbitrators, and as long as an arbitrator by definition should not be an elected person or a person supported by clans. Iasson 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :Another major problem with this is the uncertainty that someone chosen by lot would be able to participate in Arbitration Board decisions. If we choose someone who made a flurry of edits at a particular point in time and looked like an active voter, but then they disappear for a few weeks or months, the board has lost a member. I want to see people appointed or elected who are willing and able to participate. Chadlupkes 17:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :: We can solve the problem by increasing the percentage of the electorate who are nominated randomly as arbitrators . That way we can be sure that a reasonable amount of arbitrators will appear and judge the cases. If more arbitrators (or even all) appear and want to judge a case, the better for the case is. Heliaia court comprised 6.000 members. Iasson Bots :::Wow. You're really getting complicated here. How much of this work are you willing to do yourself? Chadlupkes 20:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :::: We need the help of a programmer to minimize the work. Are you a programmer? Do you have root access? Iasson 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :::::We're working with standard software here. You expect someone to write new software for what you are proposing? Are you going to pay someone to do that? We don't have volunteer developers, and even if we did, what you are proposing is more than they would be expected to do. --whosawhatsis? 21:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :::: Are bots allowed here? We can use a bot in order to implement the simpliest protocol, the "lottery" protocol. The electorate simply chooses a trustworthy and frequent lottery somehwere worldwide, and then the bot divides equaly and distributes all the possible lots of the lottery to the talkpages of the electorate members. When the result of the lottery is known, we immediatly know who the arbitrators are. Do you know how to write bots? Do you know anyone who knows? Do you want me to give a try? :::: I am waiting for the Campaigns_Wikia:Conditional_Votes_Policy to pass. In that case, and if your vote is "if we can find a bot to do the job, then I vote for random arbitrators" I will try to discover or create one. Iasson 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) ::::: Well, I didn't know anything about bots, although I see them working on Wikipedia every once in a while. So I did some quick reading. This Wikia Forum page says that most bots must be run from a users machine. That means to me that they would be subject to manipulation. I think we're better off with a nomination/confirmation process than any random selection. Chadlupkes 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :::::: I think a bot which divides lots to users talkpages cannot be the subject of manipulation. Everybody knows how many the lots are, everybody knows the time the bot divided the lots, we can use the talkpage history. The bot is supposed to distribute the lots before the lottery give us the lucky numbers, so everyone can check in any member's talkpage if they received the correct amount of lots and if the distrbution was fair or not. Iasson 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Good idea, but why are elected people so bad? Wikizach 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :Because , by definition, an arbitrator is NOT an elected person or a person supported by clans. Imagine a football match where the referee is elected by fans. Can you guess which is the winner team? Iasson 10:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::Actually, aren't arbitration boards selected by the arguing parties as a group that everyone respects enough such that decisions made by that board would be accepted by all? It's not an authority thing, where people are elected on high to command great powers, it's a trust mechanism where everyone agrees to allow a group of people to make decisions. I think it would be super slow, given the turnaround time on feedback here on Campaigns, but I think it would work if we all understood that time delay as part of the global process. (i.e. people need to sleep). Chadlupkes 21:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :A bot would be a bit too complicated, especially if none of us can code one. Maybe we should stick with a lottery (like Powerball?). Removal of admin status As of now, no one can remove admin status (except staff, I guess). See meta:Bureaucrat and meta:Steward for info on what people can do. Right now, Chad's only a bureaucrat and can only promote people. This problem can be addressed when and if it is necessary. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC) How to vote I tried to vote on this issue, and could not figure it how to do this. --HAK 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :Copy this line: :: :Replace "Approve/Disapprove/Abstain" with your choice and "comment" with your comment (or leave it blank). Place it below the other votes, and update the totals. --whosawhatsis? 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC) JUNE DISCUSSION It has been at least six long months since this proposal has been discussed, please comment on it below: Wikizach 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)